1970 PLP 180 (SCMR)
FAZAL DIN-Petitioner Versus WALI MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 180 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAZAL DIN-Petitioner Versus WALI MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 180 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 180 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 180 (SCMR) (FAZAL DIN-Petitioner Versus WALI MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ishaq Faruqi, Advocate Supreme Court instruct ed by S. Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 24th October 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 4th April 1963, in Writ Petition No. 2261-R/1962 dated the 7th June 1963 in Rev. Application No. 67/ 1963 and dated the 6th November 1968 in L. P. A. No. 154 of 1963). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-High Court whether competent to pass order in terms of compromise arrived at by parties in course of writ proceeding-One of parties to compromise sub sequently, contending before Supreme Court that High Court has no jurisdiction to pass order on compromise in writ proceeding-Held: A party to compromise was disqualified to raise such issue in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑There were four contestants, includ ing the petitioner, for transfer of Property No. S‑XX‑5‑S‑5 Canal :Park, Lahore, which, on the Settlement side, was finally disposed of in revisional jurisdiction by the Settlement Com missioner who divided it into four portions, respectively .marked A, B, C and as marked out in the plan of the property. Portion .C was given to the petitioner. The petitioner and the other contestants took the matter to the High Court in writ jurisdiction, where a compromise was reached by the parties concerned which was accepted by a learned Single Judge after he had duly. recorded the statements of the parties in acknowledge ment of the compromise. The learned Single Judge directed that the division of the disputed property should take place in accordance with the compromise. It appears that the petitioner later regretted this compromise and sought to have it reversed by moving a review petition and then a Letters Patent appeal, which have all been dismissed. He has now come up to this Court for Special Leave to Appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction under Art. 98 of the Consti tution to make orders on compromise. We consider that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to raise this plea. He was a party to the compromise which was filed in the Court and he along with others invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to accept that compromise. In these circumstances, we consider that the petitioner is disqualified to raise the issue in this petition for special leave, that the High Court was not competent to pass the orders on a compromise in writ jurisdiction. We refuse to grant leave. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.